1. I am over 18 years old and I am the plaintiff In this case. The facts set forth in this declaration are personally known to me and I have first hand knowledge of the same. If called as a witness I could competently testify thereto.

2. I am a former INTEL employee who was injured in an automobile accident while returning from a business trip on behalf of INTEL in September, 1990. At the time of the accident, I was a Senior Customer Quality and Reliability Engineer ('*CQE") in INTEL's Automotive Group.

3. I remained at work 18 months after his accident, until my worsening physical condition forced me to leave my employment at the advice of INTEL's doctors. I left my employment on a medical leave of absence on January 27, 1992.

4. Although  I was terminated involuntarily, I was not terminated for cause. I attended the depositon of Kirby Dyess during my civil case against INTEL.  At the deposition, Kirby Dyess,  the Director of Human Resources for INTEL and the executive personally responsible for my termination admitted under oath that INTEL had violated its own internal policies in terminating me prior to the resolution of my workers compensation case.

5. In 1996, I, in conjunction with current employees, and past employees of INTEL, participated in the creation of AXE-INTEL, later renamed FACE-INTEL. FACE-INTEL was formed to provide a medium for INTEL employees to air their grievances and concerns over employment conditions at INTEL. FACE-INTEL provides an extremely important forum for employees within an international corporation to communicate via a web page on the Internet and via electronic mail, on common labor issues, that, due to geographical and other limitations, would not otherwise be possible. The means employed by FACE-INTEL were chosen as those needed to reach INTEL employees.

6. As part of my efforts to communicate to INTEL employees about crucial employment issues, I sent, over a period of two years, six electonic mails to the electronic mail boxes of some INTEL employees. The electronic mail messages did not originate on INTEL property, nor were they sent to INTEL property. The electronic mails were sent over the internet to an internet  server.

7. With each of the electronic mailings I informed each recipient that I would remove them from the mailing list upon request. I only received 450 requests for removal in total from my e-mailings to INTEL employees.

8. I did not direct e-mails to INTEL management. Nor did I have information that would have permitted me access to INTEL's proprietary computer systems.

9. INTEL has a company-wide intranet system that does not access the internet. The intranet system is used for, among other things, communicating human resource policies, and any other information that needs to go to all INTEL employees.

10. As Defendant in this case, I maintained the litigation file. I propounded various discovery to plaintiff INTEL, including requests for production of documents.  In response to my various discovery reqests, plaintiff  INTEL had produced certain documents. Several of the documents responsive to my Request for Production of Documents are attached hereto as Exhibits A through I.

As part of my discovery I sent out three Requests for Admissions. I have attached as Exhibit K, INTEL's response to my second set of Requests for Admissions.

In addition, I have attached as Exhibit  J,  INTEL's Memorandum of Points and Authorities for Intel's Motion for Summary Judgment.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 5th day of April, 1999.
 
 

Date: April 5, 1999

(Signed by Ken Hamidi)

Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi